FUENTES V.

PEOPLE; GR 186421: April 17, 2017

Fuentes, mayor of Isabel, Leyte of violation of Article 3 (e) of RA 3019. The charge stemmed from a
complaint of Fe Valenzuela.
The petitioner claimed that Valenzuela was a sole proprietor of Triple A ship Chandling and General
Maritime Services operating in the Port of Isabel, Leyete since 1993 until 2001, through the business
permit issued by the LGU. He averred that despite the lack of business permit by securing temporary
permits with the Port Mgt Office and BOC, she still carried out her business. It only shut down when
the BOC issued a Cease and Desist order against the Triple A due to alleged smuggling and drug
trading. Consequently, Valenzuela secured a business permit from the LGU in order to resume the
operation of Triple A but the petitioner refused the issuance of such.
On the other hand, Valenzuela claimed that the denial of the issuance of business permit caused the
spoilage of the goods of M/V Ace Dragon in 2002. The permit was suspended from 2002 to 2006 and
it was until 2007 when the LGU business permit was issued.
Issue:
W/N Fuentes is guilty of the crime of violation of Section 3 € of RA 3019?
Ruling:
Elements of Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Govt.
1. Fuentes as a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Leytre at the time he
committed the acts complained of.
2. The modes of ciommission of the crime through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and/ or
gross negligence.
In the instant case, Fuentes’ acts were not only committed with manifest partiality but also with
bad faith. Fuentes admitted that he heard rumors that five ships of chandlers operating in the
Port of Isabel were allegedly involved in the smuggling and drug trading. Despite, Valenzuela
submitted numerous certifactions, Fuentes denied the issuance of business permit and he
even issued unnumbered memorandum which effectively barred Triple A.
Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to see and report matters as
they are wished for rather than as they are. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment
or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of
a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the
nature of fraud. Gross negligence has so defined as negligence characterized by the want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so
fas as other persons may be affected.
3. The acts of refusing to issue a Business permit in Valenzuela’s favour, coupled with his
issuance of the unnumbered Memorandum which effectively barred Triple A from engaging in
its ship chandling operations without such Business Permit, caused some sort of undue injury
on the part of Valenzuela.
In view of the foregoing, Fuentes committed a violation of Section 3€ of RA 3019 and hence must be
held criminally liable therefor,
SILVERINA CONSIGNA V PEOPLE : GR 175750-51: April 2, 2014
PEREZ, J:
FACTS:
Petitioner Consigna, a municipal treasurer of Gen Luna, Surigao del Norte was charged for
violation of Section 3€ RA 3019 and Estafa under Art 315 (2)(a) of the RPC.
On June 14, 1994, the petitioner together with Jose Herasmio, obtained as loan from private
respondent Hermelina Moleta, the sum of P 320,000 to pay the salaries of the employees of the
municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium as the IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment)
has not yet arrived. Petitioner issued 3 LBP checks signed by Mayor Rusillon (June 14, 1994=
P130,000; June 14, 1994= P130,000 and July 11, 1994 = P 60,000).
Moleta demanded payment from the petitioner from June 15, 1994 to August 18, 1994. It was on
the August 18, 1994, when Moleta deposited 3 LBP checks to her Metrobank account in Surigao
Branch. She was dismayed when the bank returned the checks due to insufficient funds. Upon
verification, she learned that the LBP account was already closed and transferred to
Development Bank of the Philippines.
Petitioner claimed by citing the case of Lacson that the offense of graft and corruption charged
against her do not show that her official position was connected with the offense charged. She
also contended that there was no fraud or misrepresentation.
Rusilon was exonerated before the SB but the petitioner was found guilty for the charge filed
against her.
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner Consigna was guilty of Section 3€ of RA 3019?
W/N the petitioner is guilty of the crime of estafa?
Ruling:
1. There is no doubt that petitioner, being a municipal treasurer, was a public officer discharging
official functions when she misused such position to be able to take out a loan from Moleta,
who was misled into the belief that petitioner, as municipal treasurer, was acting on behalf of
the municipality.
The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence;
and
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions.31

2. Yes. As borne by the records, petitioner’s representations were outright distortions of the truth
perpetrated for the sole purpose of inducing Moleta to hand to her the amount of ₱320,000.00
purportedly for the Municipality of General Luna. Being the Municipal Treasurer, there was
reason for Moleta to rely on petitioner’s representations that money is needed for the payment
of the employees’ salary as well as for the construction of the gymnasium. There was also a
ring of truth to the deception that the share of the municipality from the IRA is forthcoming.
Added to this, petitioner’s representations were even supported by the issuance of three (3)
LBP checks to guarantee payment taken from the account of the municipality and signed by
no less than the municipal mayor, giving the impression that the loaned amount would indeed
be utilized for public purposes.
ARIAS v SANDIGANBAYAN: GR 81563: December 19, 1989

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J:

FACTS:

Arias and Data, petitioners, were charged of causing undue injury to the Government through the
irregular disbursement and expenditure if public funds Sec 3€ of RA 3019.
The petitioners were prosecuted in connection with the overpricing of the land purchased by the
Bureua of Public Works for the Mangahan Floodway Project. The 19,004 sq. meters Riceland in
Rosario, Pasig was assessd at P5 per sq. meters in 1973 (based on the assessor’s tax valuation)
were as residential land in 1978 for P80 per sq. meter.
The SolGen explained that P80 per sq meter was fair and reasonable.

ISSUE:
kaso